Josh Key...

[Grecian Max]

Just an FYI - I don't use websites like that as sources, but happy to be transparent with where I do use to back up my points. So for you and anyone else who fancies reading more on it all, take a look at the below - might provide you with better information than the Guardian (or any other newspaper of your choice):

EFL Handbook - Appendix 4 of Section 7 (PFCC Regulations)
EFL Handook - Youth Development Rules
LawInSport - PFCC
Premier League Rules

Yep, also the PDFs

 

[Grecian Max]

A lot of it depends on substantiated interest from other clubs - I know Sunderland were in for him amongst others

 

[Red Bill]

I purely meant to clarify just as a response, didn't mean to cause any offence in my reference of your comment

No offence taken at all.

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

A lot of it depends on substantiated interest from other clubs - I know Sunderland were in for him amongst others

Hopefully as many clubs as possible sent in official enquiries or bids rather than just through 'off the record' conversations with agents or the Club then.

 

[andrew p long]

Hopefully as many clubs as possible sent in official enquiries or bids rather than just through 'off the record' conversations with agents or the Club then.

ECFC are sufficiently experienced in this to insist that potential buyers put bids in writing. So when a club like Sunderland tried to buy Josh Key, if they phoned up and said 'we'll pay you around 300k for him' City would say 'we only consider bids where the proposed terms are in writing'.

That's for two reasons. First, bidders often say 'worth up to a million quid' when they mean 300k up front plus possible further payments which might, under some circumstances, take the grand total to £1m. Need to be clear about exactly what is being offered.

And secondly because, after we've rejected the written offer, it goes on the file ready for the eventual tribunal.

 

[Snoop Fog]

It's surely in everyone's interests to sort this ASAP. What if a Prem club came in with a bid for Key in this window. Swansea and ourselves wouldn't know what the sell on was which could effect Swansea's decision on sale price.

 

[Exiled_Grecian]

ECFC are sufficiently experienced in this to insist that potential buyers put bids in writing. So when a club like Sunderland tried to buy Josh Key, if they phoned up and said 'we'll pay you around 300k for him' City would say 'we only consider bids where the proposed terms are in writing'.

That's for two reasons. First, bidders often say 'worth up to a million quid' when they mean 300k up front plus possible further payments which might, under some circumstances, take the grand total to £1m. Need to be clear about exactly what is being offered.

And secondly because, after we've rejected the written offer, it goes on the file ready for the eventual tribunal.

I agree that we have experience when it comes to clubs wanting our players and we will have a good idea of what we think players are viably worth in our opinion given the production line we've had over the past decade, however we are not dealing with clubs that have no experience themselves.

We may well mandate that any club provides official interest in writing but, that won't always be what happens. Clubs may ring Marcus (for example) and enquire a player's availability, his contract situation, future plans etc and say the player is someone they are 'strongly' considering - but we wouldn't automatically request an official offer in writing at that stage. Until the closing stages, where a deal looks more likely, it's often very difficult to get offers in writing even if our official line is 'we only consider bids where the proposed terms are in writing'.

Clubs will also contact agents, who are far more likely to divulge as much information as possible regarding their clients' availability, without any regard for our potential compensation rights. We won't be using agents for outgoing player's I'd imagine given that we don't have to illicit interest in the players that leave us - that usually comes from their own performances, so any agent who represents one of our players is going to help the buying club as much as possible in order to potentially receive a dual representation agreement and therefore get a double payout on one deal.

As far as I recall, Sunderland did make a previous bid for Josh in a January window (reported), which would be good news, however I'd be surprised if more than 25% of clubs who seriously enquired about Josh (via phone call etc) put in official offers in writing.

 

[andrew p long]

I agree that we have experience when it comes to clubs wanting our players and we will have a good idea of what we think players are viably worth in our opinion given the production line we've had over the past decade, however we are not dealing with clubs that have no experience themselves.

We may well mandate that any club provides official interest in writing but, that won't always be what happens. Clubs may ring Marcus (for example) and enquire a player's availability, his contract situation, future plans etc and say the player is someone they are 'strongly' considering - but we wouldn't automatically request an official offer in writing at that stage. Until the closing stages, where a deal looks more likely, it's often very difficult to get offers in writing even if our official line is 'we only consider bids where the proposed terms are in writing'.

Clubs will also contact agents, who are far more likely to divulge as much information as possible regarding their clients' availability, without any regard for our potential compensation rights. We won't be using agents for outgoing player's I'd imagine given that we don't have to illicit interest in the players that leave us - that usually comes from their own performances, so any agent who represents one of our players is going to help the buying club as much as possible in order to potentially receive a dual representation agreement and therefore get a double payout on one deal.

As far as I recall, Sunderland did make a previous bid for Josh in a January window (reported), which would be good news, however I'd be surprised if more than 25% of clubs who seriously enquired about Josh (via phone call etc) put in official offers in writing.

Agreed its only the serious interest that results in a substantive offer that's going to really help us at Tribunal. (there's another advantage of asking for bids in writing - it sorts the serious bidders from the time wasters!) Yes, much of the interest in the likes of Josh Key would have been informal enquiries that go nowhere. That's why the compensation rightly rules refer to 'substantiated' interest - not the early stage offhand enquiry 'is X available?' and 'if so what's the asking price?'. Its the serious written offer that we rejected that will influence a Tribunal, not a club who say they are 'strongly considering' a player, but then don't make an offer.

 

[Bridgy 81]

I’ve been over in Swansea recently.
It’s being fairly widely reported there that Swansea City are suing their former Manager, Russell Martin.
I recall there being a delay in his move to Southampton with some of his coaching team last summer whilst compensation was being discussed.
And although he was eventually released from his Swans’ contract their payment still hasn’t been resolved.
Apparently it rests on when Southampton made their approach for him as the amount due is different depending on whether he left for a Premier League club or another Championship one.
And around the time of those discussions Saints were of course relegated from the former to the latter.
Maybe they need or want to wait until they see if they get a further chunk of money from that process before engaging over what they owe for taking Josh?
Although you’d imagine the timescale for the Josh thing would be being determined by whoever the independent arbiters are, not either of the two clubs involved.

 

[MJP_Exeter]

I’ve been in over in Swansea recently.
It’s being fairly widely reported there that Swansea City are suing their former Manager, Russell Martin.
I recall there being a delay in his move to Southampton with some of his coaching team last summer whilst compensation was being discussed.
And although he was eventually released from his Swans’ contract their payment still hasn’t been resolved.
Apparently it rests on when Southampton made their approach for him as the amount due is different depending on whether he left for a Premier League club or another Championship one.
And around the time of those discussions Saints were of course relegated from the former to the latter.
Maybe they need or want to wait until they see if they get a further chunk of money from that process before engaging over what they owe for taking Josh?
Although you’d imagine the timescale for the Josh thing would be being determined by whoever the independent arbiters are, not either of the two clubs involved.

I doubt Swansea can prevent it from taking place, but the fact we are nearly 12 months on from this case being heard is beyond a joke. What if the club was in a difficult place financially and needed the money